…as if I were a complete moron, because that’s the way I’m feeling.
I’ve Googled for tutorials. I’ve looked at the info for Macros for Dummies. I try to create a macro–specifically, an abbreviation/expander for a medical term–and I fail.
I have Microsoft Word 2010 and the Macro dealie is there. I just can’t seem to make it work.
Any ideas?
Can you be a little more specific about what you want the macro to do? Do you just want to type, for example, PTSD, and have it change that text to “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder”? Because you don’t need macros to do that.
In Word, you use the autocorrect. Just add the entry.
I have done some minor freelance projects for automating MS Word using C# apps (VB macros suck). If you know what you are doing it is doable, although not a convenient environment to say the least.
For macros, you start by using a macro recorder. If what you want is simple enough, then you are done. If not, you then have to figure out how to modify the simple macro to achieve that much more complex thing you want. So you open up the code for that macro in the visual basic editor and you try to understand it. If you are a competent programmer with a knack for effective googling you will eventually figure out how to hack this simple “example” code you get from macro recorder into doing what you want.
If you are not such a programmer, then forget about it. There is “no silver bullet” No Silver Bullet - Wikipedia , all the more so when you are dealing with something as archaic and poorly documented as MS Office automation. The non-programmer who is proficient and productive with macros is a fictional character straight out of a marketing brochure, kind of like the politician who cares about his constituents’ interests.
I really prefer using the autocorrect. That’s what I’ve been doing in my medical transcription lab on their computers. It seems so much easier than making a macro of anything.
I’ve got a CD with a bunch of expander suggestions on it–such as “adca” for adenocarcinoma. But when I tried to make that particular one a macro, I got a message saying that my debugger would cease to function, so I didn’t go through with it.
It just seems like more trouble than it’s worth even though some say it saves time.
I’m interviewing for a pathology lab job next week; their job description says they deal with data entry and macros more than with narrated dictation. I’m hoping that if I get the job, the macros might already be programmed in. I don’t see why the autocorrect wouldn’t work just as well if not better.
A macro is a recorded sequence of events that you’d otherwise have to perform manually.
A given macro is usually created in a given macro environment, and there are zillions of those.
Some of the old ones were “blind” — they would record what you “did” (keystrokes and mouse movements and mouse clicks) and play them back, but you could not edit them and for the most part they were very sensitive to any changes (like a window not being in its original position, etc). Example: Macintosh System 6’s MacroMaker
Some macro programs recognize and can interact with “objects” — such as a window’s title bar or close button, or a menu command as identified by menu name, menu item name, including submenus. Example: QuicKeys (screen shot is of the windows version)
A few are written in a programming language of some sort (these are usually limited to specific programs that understand that programming language); examples of the latter would be Visual Basic macros (Windows) and compiled AppleScripts (MacOS). Example: Typical AppleScript
Well, I worried for nothing. It turns out that they already have a bunch of abbreviations programmed in specifically for dermatopathology diagnoses, and then there are numeric codes that go along with them, and there are references for them as well. It’s an autofill that is used to fill in most fields.
This is not true. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of employees at my company that write Excel macros on a regular basis, who know absolutely nothing about programming (beyond what was learned for Excel) - myself included, although many are a heck of a lot better than I am (I’m still learning, but I can do some decent stuff now). It just takes a few months of work to get the basics (me), and then, apparently, a few years to get really good (many of my coworkers).
Now, none of us do this for Word, because we do numbers - but I have to assume that it’s pretty much the same and probably easier since you’re not trying to do the crazy finance stuff that we’re doing.
If you are proficient and productive with macros that include variables and conditionals, then you are a programmer. So it’s all about the definition.
The ‘silver bullet’ theory is controversial, and was formed long before hardware improvements alleviated the need for programmers to write for optimal performance on a ‘line by line’ basis. I kind of agree with it in general, but much modern software is based on incredibly high levels of necessary complexity in user interfaces, which results in large volumes of repetiitive programming tasks that don’t require great degrees of programming skill. Business often like this approach because it is predictable, and I have to admit, it works well in some circumstances.
When it comes to macros, as more and more people raise the level of their computer literacy, it should be common for people to use them more readily for tasks that would have otherwise been consigned to progamming specialists. Macros are primarily used for short simple operations that any reasonable person should be able to use. The difficulty I’ve seen in the macro system used by Word and related products is a level of unnecessary complexity introduced into the macro language by it’s programmer/designers who were supposed to be showing a higher level of proficiency than the results indicate. That’s where the ‘silver bullet’ theory should have been applied.
Is it really that bad? Granted, I’ve only written a few basic macros in my life (the most complex being a Jeopardy game in Powerpoint), but this was back in sixth grade and even then it didn’t seem very complicated. I found the documentation to be plenty helpful and autocomplete was a big plus too. VB macros may suck from a programming purist perspective, but for the task they were designed for – office automation – they do the job. There’s also a lot of overlap between a VB macro and a Visual Studio VB program, so the line between a “macro writer” and a “programmer” is one of degree and not absolutes. The popularity and overlap also makes it trivial to find help online for any given function.
The macro recording ability itself generates most of the code for you, and from there it’s usually just a matter of tinkering with minor changes. Does it only start to seem terrible when you’re automating highly-complex things, and if so, what qualifies as so highly-complex that’d you’d be writing it as an Office macro instead of a standalone program to begin with?
If you can’t learn how to create and deploy macros written in QuicKeys, you probably should not be allowed to use your own computer without supervision.
Not all macro editing environment are as arcane as Visual Basic for Applications.
Number of users updating the same datasets, volume of data, running out of time in a day to run the 24 hr batch schedule, real time updating from multiple external sources, roll-back positions for minor error correction, multiple failovers guarding against catastrophe? There’s different tools for different offices.
